Constable or Turner?

Frankly, no.

All painters and other artists produce material that some like and others don't. {shrug}
 
If I had to choose, I'd probably go with Turner. There is more energy in Turner paintings that also require more effort from the viewer to fully engage with the work, bringing greater reward and appreciation. Tough decision though because Constable did such a great job of capturing a period of English country life.
 
I like the idealism of Constable and abstract of Turner, how both use light to elevate the canvas they are actually masters of turning quite mundane scenes into absolutely beautiful scenes.
 
A few years ago I visited the National Gallery which has a couple of Constables "6 footers" and a few by Turner. I came away with the impression that the Turners seemed unfinished somehow, while the Constables seemed so full of life and detail that I preferred those. This impression was strongly confirmed for me at the Turner/Constable exhibition. I skimmed over the Turners in most cases whereas I was awe-struck by the sheer presence and vitality of the Constables. Where was the detail in the skies that Turner painted? As a photographer I related strongly with the dramatic but realistic nature of Constable's skies. I loved the fact that in one of his river scenes there was a small flock of House Martins (they couldn't have been anything else|) feeding over the water.
 
I remember reading somewhere that before Constable, everyone thought the countryside was brown (see the old Dutch masters, for example). However, after Constable everyone thought the countryside was green - a fundamental shift in perception. So I think Constable had a greater influence than Turner on how we see the world.

When younger, I had a large poster of 'The fighting Temeraire' by Turner on my wall, which I thought was very inspiring. However, I thought Constable paintings were very dull. I still enjoy Turner's paintings more than Constable's, but I do appreciate Constable's amazing innovations now.
 
Isy said:
I remember reading somewhere that before Constable, everyone thought the countryside was brown (see the old Dutch masters, for example). However, after Constable everyone thought the countryside was green - a fundamental shift in perception. So I think Constable had a greater influence than Turner on how we see the world.

When younger, I had a large poster of 'The fighting Temeraire' by Turner on my wall, which I thought was very inspiring. However, I thought Constable paintings were very dull. I still enjoy Turner's paintings more than Constable's, but I do appreciate Constable's amazing innovations now.
Click to expand...


Yes, one of my criticisms of a lot of Turner's work was that he does make the landscape look brown; the influence of the Dutch masters seems to have stuck with him long after Constable showed how the English landscape was predominantly green, as you say. Claude Lorraine was a big influence which Constable seems to have avoided, fortunately. I'm far from an art critic or expert, by the way. But I know what i like........
 
Isy said:
I remember reading somewhere that before Constable, everyone thought the countryside was brown
Click to expand...
Is this the "mummy brown" theory?

Apparently, it isn't entirely accepted. There seems to be an alternative opinion that varnishes used at the time degraded with age and this is what led to the appearance of some colours, particularly green, being darkened. I do remember reading that professional cleaners of paintings warn customers that removal of the varnish will "brighten" the image and this may not be what is expected.
 
Easy choice for me - Constable. I've not seen one of his paintings that I dislike and I can spend hours looking at them.

Turner on the other hand, can only hold my attention for a few minutes . . .
 
Turner, he seems so ahead of his time with great rendering of light and dynamism.
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
Is this the "mummy brown" theory?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. I have only read introductory texts, so am no expert. The only one on Constable I have to hand says:

To convey on canvas the sun's rays glittering on the river surface and dancing on the foliage of trees agitated by the wind, Constable abandoned the 'fiddle browns' of traditional landscape painting for the true colours and textures of nature. (The Great Artists Part 1, p. 11)

Apparently he was fascinated by every small detail of the landscape, because he loved the Suffolk countryside where he was raised.
 
Isy said:
I don't think so. I have only read introductory texts, so am no expert. The only one on Constable I have to hand says:
Click to expand...
There is a school of thought which says "you either like a picture or you don't, regardless of who made that image".

I rather think that's my position. I like some of Constable's work and I like some of Turner's work. I also like some of the very old paintings and some of the latest paintings but I really don't bother that much about who painted it.
 
sirch said:
Turner, he seems so ahead of his time with great rendering of light and dynamism.
Click to expand...

Constable was very much ahead of his time too. In some ways Turner's work was an extension of that by Claude Lorraine. As I said earlier, I'm not an expert but that point was made by in the captions to the exhibition, and the evidence was clear in the paintings as well.
 
if you like landscapes then it is Constable, Tuner on the other hand did some marvellous seascapes around Europe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
Nikon f1.8 said:
if you like landscapes then it is Constable, Tuner on the other hand did some marvellous seascapes around Europe.
Click to expand...
Very different styles as well as different subject matter.......

Another thing that occurred to me was that many a Turner featured historical or biblical scenes while Constable focussed intensely on the landscape around without bringing any of that mythological stuff into the equation.
 
Just a general observation, leading to a question... I wonder what it is that makes people want to classify some creative people against other creative people.

There was a discussion on this subject several years ago, on BBC Radio 4 or possibly BBC Radio 3. One of the contributors said something along the lines of " it's a form of reflected glory complex, just like 'my football team is better than your football team' ". There was discussion about whether the syndrome is another form of 'status seeking' and if I'm remembering correctly the chairman/presenter made a wry comment along the lines of "we seem to be seeing that here".

Isn't the point of someone painting a picture or making a photograph is about communication and every image is as "good" as another image?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top